Women only Cambridge college Newnham welcome men who ID as trans

By way of background: At Newnham men are allowed in student's rooms, including overnight (there are no 'dorm rooms' - that's an American thing). To leave at night though, males have to be escorted past the Porter's Lodge. What you believe is frankly neither here nor there.

Supervisions for first year's are generally in College; as your subjects get more specialized it''s likely that your supervisions are out of college.

It's an all-female college by virtue of the fact that "members" of College - are women. Membership of a college is a legal status within the University. You have to be a member of a college to qualify for a degree. Historically most colleges were male only. One by one they all went mixed-sex, the last was Magdalene in 1988. The two women-only colleges were New Hall and Newnham when I was an undergrad. New Hall is called something else now.

Women only colleges have a particular ethos and atmosphere. It's not the absence of men, but the fact that all men are outsiders, visitors to "female territory" and such like that makes it special. I imagine that's rather destroyed when some of the women are actually men.

Female-only colleges at Cambridge are not about safety, and women are safe at all colleges. So are people who identify as trans. The idea that trans-identifying men need to be in a female college because only while surrounded by females can they be kept safe is just ... bizarre.

Yup, sounds like a clear cut case of 'misgendering':

https://www.cps.gov.uk/london-north/news/teenagers-jailed-transphobic-attack-harrow

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/02/brianna-ghey-murderers-named-sentenced-to-life-in-prison

Of course one can attempt to minimise violent abuse via semantics to wash the blood off the hands of gender critical ideology but as has been explained multiple times reporting is not the same as offending.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/57310/html/

If it were, we wouldn't put any stock in the suggestion that women don't report 90% of their rapes.

The college accommodation & supervision is for females only. That's part of the reason why it's designated as female. If there were no female only spaces it would hardly qualify as a female college. The female students are hardly at risk of sexual violence in classrooms or busy common areas of the university. Nor are employees likely to pose a risk. I don't believe for one second males can just saunter into dorm rooms & wander unimpeded without any kind of notification.

Exactly why would Sex Matters be so incensed if there was no exclusive female experience since their whole alleged raison d'etre is women's safety?

You're grasping at straws here.

Can we not misuse 'hate crime' statistics to leverage any male people into any female single sex provision please?

Hate crime, England and Wales, 2022 to 2023 second edition
Updated 2 November 2023

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2022-to-2023/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2022-to-2023

This above is the source for the 11% increase

"sexual orientation hate crimes fell by 6%, to 24,102 offences, while transgender hate crimes increased by 11%, to 4,732 offences"
and
"Transgender identity hate crimes rose by 11% (from 4,262 to 4,732) over the same period, the highest number since the time series began in the year ending March 2012. Transgender issues have been heavily discussed by politicians, the media and on social media over the last year, which may have led to an increase in these offences, or more awareness in the police in the identification and recording of these crimes."

Notice it is very open to what those hate crimes might be. Just (as has been pointed out by others) Hate crime is defined as ‘any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards someone based on a personal characteristic.’ .

And also worth noting that the increase in raw numbers is 470.

Violence against the person is separated into a chart at figure 2.8.
Figure 2.8: Percentage of selected offences resulting in charge/summons, by hate crime strand, offences recorded in the year ending March 2023, England and Wales, 30 forces

The percentage there was rounded up to 2% (ie. less than 2%). This is compared to Race and Sexual orientation being 6% of the offences being for violence against the person. Religion was 5%. Disability was 1%.

This is the only attempt to break this data into violent crimes. Public order offences registered against transgender people was 3% and criminal damage and arson was also 3%.

This is good. Very little 'violence' was charged/summoned. This gets even clearer when you look at the definition for "violence against the person"
From this resource that explains this:

https://www.psni.police.uk/sites/default/files/2024-11/Police%20Recorded%20Crime%20User%20Guide.pdf

"Much of the violence against the person increase resulted from a widening of the offence coverage to include assaults with little or no physical injury and offences of harassment (again with no injury)."

However, lucky for us there is a very detailed listing of what is considered under this category on page 24 of that PDF. I think that it is very clear that 'Violence against the person' is not limited to physical violence at all.

-start-
VIOLENCE AGAINST THE PERSON
Violence against the person is grouped into five high-level categories – Homicide, Death or serious injury by unlawful driving, Violence with injury, Violence without injury and Stalking and Harassment.

Homicide
1 Murder
4.1 Manslaughter
4.10 Corporate manslaughter
Where an organisation is deemed responsible for a person’s death. This offence differs from the basic HOCR rule of recording based on the initial report to police and is only recorded once an inquest concludes with a verdict of unlawful killing or the PPS authorise a charge (or direct that it is not in the public interest to do so).
4.2 Infanticide
Applied to infants under 12 months killed by the mother while of disturbed mind.

Death or serious injury caused by unlawful driving
These offences differ from the basic HOCR rule of recording based on the initial report to police and are only recorded once the investigation confirms the offence is made out, ie a person is charged or PPS recommend prosecution.

4.4 Causing death or serious injury by dangerous driving
4.6 Causing death or serious injury by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs
4.8 Causing death or serious injury by careless or inconsiderate driving
4.9 Causing death or serious injury by driving: unlicensed drivers etc
37.1 Causing death by aggravated vehicle taking
Violence with injury
2 Attempted murder
4.3 Intentional destruction of viable unborn child
4.7 Causing or allowing death of a child or vulnerable person

5D Assault with intent to cause serious harm

Includes offences of grievous bodily harm (GBH) with intent and wounding with intent. These offences are recorded where there is clear evidence of a deliberate attempt to inflict serious bodily harm regardless of level of injury sustained.

5E Endangering life
This classification is additionally split within PSNI to provide a data series for explosives offences and firearms/ammunition offences.

8N Assault with injury
This classification is further split:

Grievous bodily harm or Wounding - where injury may result in permanent disability; more than minor permanent disfigurement; broken bones; fractured skull; compound fractures; substantial loss of blood; internal injury; lengthy treatment or serious psychiatric injury (based on expert evidence); and
shock (when accompanied by expert psychological evidence)
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (AOABH) – injuries ranging from grazes, scratches and reddening of the skin to simple broken nose or broken finger. Also includes non-visible injury causing more than a passing moment of pain or discomfort which has an adverse impact on the victim.
Poisoning to aggrieve
Non-fatal strangulation - The Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 created the offence of ‘Non-fatal strangulation’, recording commenced 26th June 2023.

8P Racially or religiously-aggravated assault with injury
The legislation behind these racially or religiously-aggravated offences does not exist within Northern Ireland and therefore this classification does not apply. Records are instead classified to 8N Assault with injury and are included in the racist and faith/religion hate crime strands.
8S Assault with injury on a constable
Where a police officer was the victim of GBH/wounding with intent, GBH, Wounding or AOABH in the course of their duty.
8T Assault with injury on an emergency worker (other than a constable)
Within Northern Ireland these offences are classified to 8N Assault with injury (where the injury is minor) and 105A Assault without injury (where no injury has been sustained).24Violence without injury
3A Conspiracy to murder
3B Threats to kill
Where an individual fears that the offender’s threat is real and may be carried out.
11A Cruelty to children/young persons
13 Child abduction
14 Procuring illegal abortion
36 Kidnapping
104 Assault without injury on a constable
Where, in the course of their duty, a police officer was the victim of an assault where no injury was caused.
105A Assault without injury
Offences where, at the most, a feeling of touch or passing moment of pain is experienced by the victim.
Summary offences, closely associated with actual bodily harm (see classification 8N). Includes, amongs other offences, common assault and aggravated assault. From 1 April 2003 only includes assaults involving no injury, please note that this change was introduced a year earlier in England and Wales on 1 April 2002.
105B Racially or religiously-aggravated assault without injury
The legislation behind these racially or religiously-aggravated offences does not exist within Northern Ireland and therefore this classification does not apply. Records are instead classified to 105A Assault without injury and are included in the racist and faith/religion hate crime strands.
106 Modern slavery
Includes offences such as holding a person in slavery or servitude, requiring a person to perform forced or compulsory labour and arranging/facilitating travel of another person with a view to exploitation.
Stalking and harassment
8L Harassment
Harassment offences are those incidents where no other substantive notifiable offence exists, but when looked at as a course of conduct are likely to cause fear, alarm or distress. Within Northern Ireland this classification is further split into harassment and intimidation offences.
8M Racially or religiously-aggravated harassment
The legislation behind these racially or religiously-aggravated offences does not exist within Northern Ireland and therefore this classification does not apply. Records are instead classified to 105A Assault without injury and are included in the racist and faith/religion hate crime strands.
8Q Stalking
Stalking legislation was introduced in Northern Ireland on 27th April 2022, through the Protection from Stalking Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. Offences of “stalking” and of “threatening and abusive behaviour” are recorded from this date.
8R Malicious communications
The recording of malicious communications offences started for the first time in Northern Ireland from 1st April 2017. This classification also includes offences relating to 'revenge porn'; new legislation on disclosing private sexual photographs and film with intent to cause distress was introduced in June 2016.
8U Controlling or coercive behaviour
The Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (NI) 2021 introduced the “domestic abuse offence” within Northern Ireland on 21st February 2022, enabling the recording of abusive behaviour occurring on two or more occasions against an intimate partner, former partner or close family member, ie within the definition of domestic abuse used in Northern Ireland and where abusive behaviour includes controlling or coercive behaviour, psychological abuse, emotional abuse, financial abuse and economic abuse.
-end-

The following is a link to the ONS that lists the above for all of UK but without the extra detail:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/methodologies/userguidetocrimestatisticsforenglandandwales#appendix-1-recorded-crime-list

So, as suspected, a male person can report his spouse or ex- spouse for domestic abuse (ie. not accepting that transition, and using the correct sex pronouns) and this would also be coded as a 'hate crime - violence against the person.'

Tweets that someone doesn't like about themselves fall under malicious communication and can be recorded as a 'hate crime- violence against the person'.

It always pays to look in the data that is being posted to check exactly what it says and doesn't say.

If someone says directly or implies or infers anything about 'violent' hate crimes, always check the source, and drill down to any data given.

That’s nonsense; Newnham is pretty much as much of a mixed experience as anywhere else in Cambridge. Students use all the central university facilities, lectures are in departments with everyone else, the college is full of men (porters, catering staff, non-academic staff, gardeners, chefs, supervisors); the college cafe is open to anyone coming in off the street, and the loos are all unisex single loos. Boyfriends and friends are wandering all over the place, at formal hall, in the Buttery, etc. - they don’t need to sign in. The only things that are mainly single sex are the accommodation (though boyfriends are always around), the Fellowship, and usually the college library, which is mainly open only to college members.

It’s dotty to think that a trans person needs to be there to be protected from men in any way.

Newnham students are not educated only - or even mostly - in the company of women. Lectures take place outside college. Supervisions are usually outside college. Social life ditto.

Please have the grace to admit that you know nothing about Cambridge.

Um, having a few blokes over to individual dorm rooms & common areas who are accompanied, need to sign in & are identifiable/trackable is hardly the same as uncontrolled thousands all over the place.

As usual, it's worth going to the source. EA2010 Section 13(4):

If the protected characteristic is marriage and civil partnership, this section applies to a contravention of Part 5 (work) only if the treatment is because it is B who is married or a civil partner.

This solves several mysteries. It makes it clear that in an employment context only, a single employee is not protected against discrimination on the grounds of marital status. In every other context they are, including discrimination by perception and by association.

This may have been what Atkins had in mind, but if so, she conflated discrimination in general, with discrimination at work. That's perhaps understandable, but still an error. The same applies to your magazine article, which is written from an employment perspective.

More widely - other than the statutory exceptions, of which disability (as I wrote earlier) is one, and now - and I thank you for drawing my attention to it - marital status in a work context (age is the third one treated somewhat differently) direct discrimination against someone for not having a PC is still "because of" a PC, and so still unlawful.

This 'interpretation' of Dhejne's study was debunked by none other than Dhejne herself much to the embarrassment of Kathleen Stock & co as they attempted to misrepresent her work in front of UK parliament no less.

"Criminality
In response to questions 38 and 39 Prof Freedman referenced “a well-known Swedish study” to imply that patterns of criminality are the same amongst trans women as they are amongst cis (non-trans) men. In her response to Q40 she alleged there were “Swedish studies” (plural). Additionally, Prof Stock referred to “male patterns” when talking about criminal behaviour in her answer to Q26.
I understand the “Swedish study” to be a single 2011 article published by Cecilia Dhejne and colleagues[1], in which the authors reported on mortality, suicidality, psychiatric care and conviction rates among individuals who transitioned in Sweden between 1973 and 2003. This study is widely but inaccurately cited by anti-trans groups on social media as evidence that trans women retain “male patterns” of criminality, an error repeated by Profs Freedman and Stock.
Dhejne herself rejected this interpretation explicitly in an interview with Cristan Williams of TransAdvocate in November 2015[2]. I attach the full relevant extract in Appendix B. A key point she makes is the study is “certainly not saying that we found that trans women were a rape risk” to cis women. Additionally, the study was not focused on investigating criminal behaviour, was drawn from a small cohort in one country, and only indicated a statistically significant increased risk of conviction for trans people who ‘underwent sex reassignment before 1989’:[3] a time when fewer opportunities and resources were available to trans people in Sweden, which may have resulted in increased criminalisation in a similar manner to other stigmatised groups. The authors therefore conclude that the best outcomes occur when individuals also receive long-term health and social care support in addition to any hormone therapy or surgery that they might require."

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/21023/html/

"but I fail to see why that means that women have to put up with my company everywhere. It is entirely unreasonable for me to intrude into women's spaces, even if I think I'm more feminine than masculine."

Legal prohibitions are generally underpinned by the potential for harm. Therefore, unless there's a risk of harm, there's no requirement for exclusion. Personal subjective comfort levels don't qualify as harm nor is there any evidence trans women pose a greater risk of harm than a lesbian would to women.

"I just happen to place myself near a male extreme which is more typical of women; this does not change my sex."

No one is suggesting trans women are biological identical to cis women rather they share psychological, behavioural inclinations & cultural associations.

"In truth, I don't think "femininity" and "masculinity" are well enough defined to measure, and in any culture they are complex combinations of many personality traits, so any mapping of these characteristics onto a scale is a foolish endeavour. So it is, in my opinion, pretty meaningless to try to talk in terms of how masculine a man is, and ridiculous to say that a man is so feminine that he must really be a woman. Masculinity and femininity are just talking points, rather like optimist/pessimist, or introvert/extrovert"

There's a difference between agreed social definitions & personal one's. How an individual understands how their physical & psychological disposition fits into societal categorisations is a subjectively personal one. What you don't realise is the idea that males & females should be categorised based purely on birth reproductive traits is an opinion when expressed from the point of view of the individual. IE its personally constructed. You get to decide for your self what you identify more with as do others. The fact that there is a more material element to reproductive traits doesn't make them any more valid from a personal point of view.

Whilst I appreciate that its more pragmatic to organise society based on reproductive traits in certain circumstances, that conflicts with how society categorises gender. Morally, right or wrong, society categorises gender based on typical associations of cis males & females. It's the world we created, & the fact it remains means its of evolutionary utility. Humans need to code quickly in order to categorise phenomena for decision making. Coding males & females on typical associations is a kind of short hand for that which by extension has implications on how we societally distinguish the sexes.

The thing is, if you don't understand the process of how we got to typical associations then can't understand gender distinctions. Gender critical ideology leaning too heavily on purely patriarchal expectations for the manifestation of gendered associations is a sure way to miss the trees for the woods.

I don't know why perceptive and associative discrimination don't apply to marriage etc: it's just what the Act says.

Explanatory Note to Section 13:

59.Direct discrimination occurs where the reason for a person being treated less favourably than another is a protected characteristic listed in section 4. This definition is broad enough to cover cases where the less favourable treatment is because of the victim’s association with someone who has that characteristic (for example, is disabled), or because the victim is wrongly thought to have it (for example, a particular religious belief).
60.However, a different approach applies where the reason for the treatment is marriage or civil partnership, in which case only less favourable treatment because of the victim’s status amounts to discrimination. It must be the victim, rather than anybody else, who is married or a civil partner.

They’ll be more women around the place than in a co-ed college of course, but students are allowed to have guests over both in their rooms and in communal areas so there will still always be men and people of male sex and whatever gender identity they may have chosen around outside of class too. Are you imagining an entire university full of women or something? That’s not what college means in this context.

I'm sure I would be safer if I was surrounded only by women, but I fail to see why that means that women have to put up with my company everywhere. It is entirely unreasonable for me to intrude into women's spaces, even if I think I'm more feminine than masculine. Even if gender (whatever it's defined as) is dimorphic, like dimorphic sex characteristics such as height, I am still on the gender spectrum for a man, not on the overlapping gender spectrum for a woman. I just happen to place myself near a male extreme which is more typical of women; this does not change my sex.

In truth, I don't think "femininity" and "masculinity" are well enough defined to measure, and in any culture they are complex combinations of many personality traits, so any mapping of these characteristics onto a scale is a foolish endeavour. So it is, in my opinion, pretty meaningless to try to talk in terms of how masculine a man is, and ridiculous to say that a man is so feminine that he must really be a woman. Masculinity and femininity are just talking points, rather like optimist/pessimist, or introvert/extrovert.

Because violent hate crimes have increased generally.

"2. Police recorded hate crime
Key results
in the year ending March 2023, there were 145,214 hate crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales (excluding Devon and Cornwall police[footnote 2]), a decrease of 5% from the year ending March 2022 (153,536 offences), the first fall since the comparable time series began in the year ending March 2013
prior to the fall seen this year, police recorded hate crime offences rose between the years ending 2013 and 2022; this prolonged period of increasing offences was thought to have been driven by improvements in crime recording by the police and better identification of what constitutes a hate crime
there were 101,906 race hate crimes, a fall of 6% from the previous year when there were 108,476 offences, this was driven by a decrease in racially or religiously aggravated public fear, alarm or distress offences
as in previous years, the majority of hate crimes were racially motivated, accounting for 7 in 10 of all such offences (70%; 101,906 offences)
religious hate crimes decreased by 4%, from 8,602 to 8,241 offences
sexual orientation hate crimes fell by 6%, to 24,102 offences, while transgender hate crimes increased by 11%, to 4,732 offences
disability hate crimes fell slightly (by 1%) compared with the previous year, at 13,777 offences
over half (51%) of the hate crimes recorded by the police were for public order offences, 41% were for violence against the person offences and 5% were recorded as criminal damage and arson offences

Transgender identity hate crimes rose by 11% (from 4,262 to 4,732) over the same period, the highest number since the time series began in the year ending March 2012. Transgender issues have been heavily discussed by politicians, the media and on social media over the last year, which may have led to an increase in these offences, or more awareness in the police in the identification and recording of these crimes.

Figure 2.8: Percentage of selected offences resulting in charge/summons, by hate crime strand, offences recorded in the year ending March 2023, England and Wales, 30 forces"

Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office Data Hub

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2022-to-2023/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2022-to-2023

Already addressed this upthread.

Social categorisations of gender are how society groups people into categories like 'man' or 'woman' based on social constructs of roles, behaviours, and expectations. The process, known as gender socialisation, begins in childhood and influences how individuals see themselves and others.

Yes, perceptive and associative discrimination exist (although neither applies to the protected characteristic of marriage or civil partnership).

Of course they do. What is your reasoning for asserting that discrimination by perception doesn't apply to a subset of protected characteristics?

I'm going to stop replying now, as this is a waste of my time.

Yes, perceptive and associative discrimination exist (although neither applies to the protected characteristic of marriage or civil partnership). It's still not an invitation to treat a person with a protected characteristic as a comparator for discrimination against people without it. If it was, why would they bother to point out that single people do not have this protected characteristic? It would just be listed, in the same way as male and female are listed under sex, and three different options are listed under sexuality (not including asexual, and they go out of their way to advise that asexual people are therefore not protected from discrimination).

The point is the demonising & dehumanising rhetoric promoted by anti trans groups in the media has heightened a hostile environment generally that has seen an increase in violent hate crimes. Women not being as likely perpetrators of violence aren't a risk to trans people therefore education in their company is a safer option.

"In any case Newnham students have lectures in mixed-sex environments, and many will also have supervisions with students from other colleges or with male supervisors - nobody's escaping a mixed education"

Err, college supervisors aren't exactly known for perpetuating violence against their students & clearly given its a female college, students are overwhelmingly less likely to come into contact with males.

The point is both women & LGBTQ groups don't report crime. Gallup surveys indicate approximately 13% of LGBTQ report hate crimes which includes violent crime.

https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/67cee904ccdbce2dd00f65d0/67e693bb0cbe1e9289d25758_Galop-Hate-Crime-Report-2021-1.pdf

The Citizens Advice guide on how to work out whether you've suffered discrimination makes it clear that the victim must have the relevant protected characteristic, and have been unfavourably treated because of it.

It quite literally says exactly the oppostite. Quoting from the webpage:

"If what happened wasn’t because of your protected characteristic
It might still be discrimination if someone discriminated against you either:

• because they thought you had a protected characteristic, even though you don’t
• because of someone else’s protected characteristic

So - no, it makes it very clear that the victim doesn't have to have the relevant protected characteristic. Which, of course they don't.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/check-if-youre-protected-from-discrimination/equality-act-2010-discrimination-and-your-rights/

The Citizens Advice guide on how to work out whether you've suffered discrimination makes it clear that the victim must have the relevant protected characteristic, and have been unfavourably treated because of it.

If it was because of your protected characteristic ...you might have experienced discrimination

We had this before. It was something about jewellery stores and the mall and organic gravitation...

Side EYE...

Howseitgoin · Today 13:36

It is if you consider the increase in hate crimes against trans people.

Side wye when they get on the bus isn't hate crime. As lady LARPers are confident, vocal, often violent and very well supported by other fantasists, to the extent that have had sex realist events cancelled, or disrupted by said zealots, it's facile and illogical to try to argue that TW are unsafe in university environments.

I'd go so far as to say that it's categorically and emphatically untrue.